Friday, 7 December 2012

Has Cath News no shame!

It is a while since I've commented on the antics over at Cath News, but honestly this one takes the biscuit!

They are advertising a 'training course' on the 'new' media, to be addressed by such luminaries as publisher Christine Hogan.  And it will cost you anything from between $200 to $2216 to attend, depending on what technological goodies you want to purchase along with your attendance!

But here is the thing.  What precisely are Cath News' (and Church Resources) credentials in this area?

It is true of course that they use the internet, including, now, things like twitter and facebook.

The trouble is that they do it in the most old-fashioned way possible!

They don't update on stories throughout the day - what you get at 8.30 or 9am each day (or midday Friday) is what you get, bar the few comments from readers that get approved thee days.

And, Monday's liberal Trojan horse 'blog watcher' aside, the news sources they link to are resolutely 'old media' ones.  Indeed, normally they only provide links to newspaper stories, not even bothering with radio or television (unless of course to promote liberal dissenters like Geraldine Doogue) - so important stories like last night's 7.30 Report story on the St John of God order don't even crack a mention.

Indeed, Ms Hogan has repeatedly frothed at the mouth on the horrors of the social media (especially bloggers like me!) in her own blog pieces:

"At the same time as the publishers were seeing their circulations plummet and internet usage rise, two other phenomena was gathering speed – the citizen journalist and the ubiquitous blogger. Sometimes untrained, always opinionated, their ascent was an echo of the inflation of another source of "news" ... the extremist commentator (sometimes known as a “bloviator” in US tabloid parlance)...

...It comes at us all day every day – from RSS feeds, tweets, Facebook, Pinterest, LinkedIn... whatever... but in the end, you have to decide what you really want to read.

Here is what I want for you – well-written, well-researched, intelligent pieces from journalists employed by major media organisations who know the difference between editorial and editorialising."

Right.  Just the people to train you on how to use and respond to the social media!


PM said...

"journalists employed by major media organisations who know the difference between editorial and editorialising."

Kate Edwards said...

Dear PM, do enlarge on your point!

I have to admit I've always been a bit bemused by just what Ms Hogan was trying to imply in that sentence.

Personally I see the difference as Cath News editorializes (expresses an opinion while under the guide of presenting an objective report) through its selection of stories, headlines and pictures (and acceptance or rejection of comments), while bloggers such as myself essentially write editorial pieces (viz opinion) that make no pretense to be anything else...

PM said...

Apologies - I thought I had gone on to say 'like Leigh Sales?', but it dropped off. The herd mentality in our media is appalling and not to be imitated in the church.

Indeed,the outrageous bias of the ABC poses some tricky questions as we approach the royal commission. If we come out swinging, we risk appearing to defend the indefensible. But we can't let them get away with airbrushing the other 99.5% of abuse out of existence, or with glossing over the role of the 1960s counter-culture in spreading it.

Kate Edwards said...

True enough. Though personally I think the Fairfax media are far worse than the ABC on this issue.

And I thought Chris Uhlmann's interview with the superior of the St John of God order was actually pretty well done - tough but making fair points.

PM said...

I agree about Fairfax. But ultimately their editorial policy is for their shareholders, and we can stop buying Fairfax papers if we object. The ABC has a responsibility under its charter to be balanced which it flagrantly ignores (or are we about to see something on the Adelaide that Dunstan created?)